Reality and Existence Mark Krueger

Chapter 1:
Defining Existence and Reality

There are two things that must be understood, in particular, to construct an accurate

representation of the world around us: Existence and Reality. The two aren’t mutually exclusive

and are sometimes used interchangeably in conversations with an average citizen. The two are

not synonymous, however, and a clear distinction must be understood to exist between the two

concepts. A cursory differentiation between the two may be stated: reality is having causal

capacity and existence is having a “thisness”. Thisness refers to the ability to be pointed out or

demonstrated. It means having these criteria: an existent must have a composition of parts

(Material Substantiation), arranged in a particular manner (Form), engaging in certain actions

(Functions) in a given context (Context). A boat is a collection of wood, sealant, paint and

fasteners (Material Substantiation) arranged into a hull (Form) which transports objects and

people (Function) over the surface of water (Context). The boat therefore exists. But in what

manner does it exist and to what degree is it real?

Existence is a broad term which encompasses all of the aspects being. It means having a

definition that requires Material Substantiation of Form and Function in some kind of Context.

Actualized existence refers to anything that qualifies as having each of these aspects. Material

substantiation can only refer to perishable things. A thing is perishable if it must stop existing as

a specific this in the realm of reality (causal capacity). Non-existence refers to anything not

materially substantiated. There are three modes of Actualized Existence: Substantial existence,

Instantiated existence and Relational existence. There are also two modes of Non-existence:

Potential existence and Impossibilities. Material substantiation, Form, Function and Context are

required for every mode of actualized existence and it is beneficial to see how they fit together
Reality and Existence Mark Krueger

across modes. This will also serve as a means of explicating the different modes of existence and

illuminating different relationships between the terms.

To actually exist something must be Substantially Existent. Matter and causality cannot

exist separately because whenever a cause is occurring, it is materially substantiated.

Furthermore, whenever we encounter matter it is in some state of causal connection with us or

something else. This matter was formed by some other matter so it has a cause in that sense. The

thing is in our perception and is thus a cause of consideration. It is causally connected to the

environment. There are physical components of every existent thing that can be observed or

experienced as having some type of substance be it molecules or atoms or subatomic particles,

etc (material substantiation). Any substantial thing must have some shape, even if it is

unintelligible or only intelligible in the realm of mathematics (form). These physical components

always are in some state of change according to experience and the laws of thermodynamics

(function). The material body and the changes that arise from it must also occur in some location

at some instant (because surely, a thing cannot exist nowhere). Thus, the position of an existent

is necessarily in a spatial and temporal relationship to every other existent thing past, present or

future (context).

This spatial-temporal relationship is only one of the myriad of necessary relationships

which constitute its differentiation from every other existent. Another is being in thermal contact

with the environment, thus adding to the total entropy increase of the universe. Even if the body

in question is isolated, it must be in thermal contact with something (namely the adiabatic walls).

Everything that exists substantially has a mass (maybe not a rest mass, as is the case with

photons, but a mass none the less) and thus a kinetic effect in the universe. This means that they

are capable of exchanging momentum with other substantial beings.

Substantial existents generally arise from other substantial existents. Animals reproduce

through sexual intercourse. Cells reproduce through division. Photons are generated by the return

of an electron of an atom from an excited state to a less excited state. But ultimately, matter

cannot be defined materially. If we break matter down from organism to organ to tissue to cell to

molecules to atoms to protons, neutrons and electrons to quarks and leptons to etc., we ultimately

find that matter is certainly not as firm and definite as we thought. Quantum mechanics shows us

that fundamental material concepts (like electrons and photons) are wave functions. This means

that they are not static and that they behave in ways that can interfere with other wave functions.

They are constantly moving, and the motion of the particle is not necessarily correspondent to its

motion across space (like it does classically). They can superimpose, so that two material

substituents overlap spatially. It also means that we can put a wavelength to all matter, even if it

doesn’t seem all that useful in larger reference frames (at this point anyway).

Thermodynamics shows that all things are in some sort of motion. Temperature is a

measure of kinetic energy of particles. There is an absolute temperature scale (Kelvin) with a

defined zero point. Nothing can ever reach absolute zero, even if it gets infinitesimally close. At

the most fundamental levels, existence requires motion and change. What this says to me is that

being is primarily a verb. Substantiated existence refers to the act of being in the sense of

creating a metaphysical noun. Restated, any substantial existent is necessarily engaging in an

action called being.

Instantiated existence describes events or processes that take place in substantial

existents. Some people are hesitant to extend existence to actions; but if what we said just now is

true, and being is primarily a verb, then actions must certainly exist. If running did not exist, then

a dog could never be running. Furthermore, actions fulfill the definitional requirements we have
Reality and Existence Mark Krueger

set. Running involves two or more limbs on a body (material substantiation) that are arranged in

a physiologically and kinetically coherent fashion (form) such that they can expand and contract

rapidly and repeatedly for the purpose of motility (function) across the ground swiftly (context).

Thus, the action of running exists so long as it is instantiated in a substantial existent.

But if all actions must be instantiated in a substantial existent, and substantial existence

requires the action of being, then being must be a special type of action that is the basis for all

other actions. Being is an action that must always be occurring so long as an object exists. That

object is capable of performing various instantiated actions, but may be performing different

actions at any given time, so that none of them are constant for its being (the noun) except its

being (the verb). So the difference between substantial and instantiated existence is that the

former is an action that must always be occurring for the object to exist (even if it is constantly

changing) and the latter is an action that may end without ending the object’s existence. But both

are simultaneously occurring in an actualized existent. So the formula of an instantiated existent

is such that its material substantiation is comprised of the material substantiation and form of

substantial existence. The form of an instantiated existent is comprised of function and context of

material substantiation. The function and the context of the instantiated existent are the unique

portions of the formula.

Relational existence is the establishment of a co-defining context between two

substantially existent things. Because everything that exists has some unique relationships to

every other existent, we can differentiate between things by referring to the manner and means of

that relationship. Relationships are entirely relative to each existent and cannot possibly be

completely enumerated for even a single existent. But what we have been able to do as rational

creatures is create a general form of understanding external relationships in terms of observable

phenomenon (though not necessarily empirically so). The relationships that exist between

Substantial existents are brought about through Instantiated existents. Every action has a distinct

initiator and terminator. What I mean is that there is a thing which performs the action and a

thing on which the actions are performed (even if the action is reflexive). Furthermore, every

action has a quality or an experiential component to it. It is the co-experiencing of an event by

substantial existents that creates the relationship between them.

It is possible to examine this clearly through an examination of what it is friendship.

Friendship is two organisms (material substantiation) associating together in some manner

(function) that is beneficial to the eudemonia (form) of the other substantial existent or organism

(context). Notice the inversion of the formula though. Some will say that form had to switch

places with function in order to make any sense of the formula. But we said earlier that relational

existence was the extension of the instantiated existence between substantial existents. The

material substantiation in this case is the entirety of the substantial existence of the two beings.

The function of the relational existent is the function of the instantiated existent and the form is

the context of the instantiated existent. The context in relational existent is thus the only unique

portion of the new formula. What is becoming clear are the many levels at which context

determines the actualized existent.

Context dependence is not limited to substantial existence. Notice that if the context of

running were changed from “across the ground” to “through the water” then we have an efficient

definition of swimming. The context is thus the true determinant of both substantial and

instantiated existents; the other contingencies provide the evaluative methods of determining its

worth. The thisness for a boat is determined by the context of “over the surface of water”, for if it

were changed to “turned over on land” then the object is a platform. If the context is retained and
Reality and Existence Mark Krueger

the boat remains “over the surface of water”, then we must examine the other qualities (but really

we would do this regardless of the context). If the boat is made of untreated paper, or the hull has

a hole in it or the boat is not capable of holding any weight without breaking, then we would say

that it is objectively a poor boat. If the boat is formed of iron and the hull is made large, sturdy

and continuous and it can hold many freights and people, then we would say it is objectively a

good boat. But subjectively, the paper boat could be of extremely good quality (say to the child

who made it). This exposition reveals the instantiation of value laden adjectives in being.

For the case of the instantiated existents, we can repeat this exposition. If the appropriate

limbs are strong and flexible, arranged on one side of the organism (the side in contact with the

surface) and carrying out the function excellently, then the organism is objectively good at

running. If the limbs are not suited for running, or they are arranged in a way that is inconvenient

for the purpose, or the function is being carried out in an odd fashion, then we can say that the

organism is objectively bad at running. But subjectively, one could see the short stubby legs of a

dachshund as running in an extremely effective and terrifying manner (say to the frog it is

chasing). What we see is also the creation of the value laden adverbs. Because an analysis of the

manner in which the function is carried out is a description of the action. Value does not exist in

that it has no material substantiation, but can only describe the contextual relationship of an

object with regard to a particular existent. A proper discussion of value will be extrapolated in an

ethical consideration.

A note on the definitional consequences; it seems as though, all things are based upon

action. So in actuality, all things are Instantiated and, thus, physical verbs. If we take being to be

the primary verb, and all existent things are being, the physical verb of being provides the basis

for the metaphysical nouns. I call the noun a metaphysical thing because to say otherwise implies
Reality and Existence Mark Krueger

that it exists separate from action. Furthermore, it is only a noun insofar as we conceive of it as

being such linguistically and rationally, thus not physically. If physics is engaged with the realm

of things that can be observed and metaphysics is engaged with the realm of things that can be

reasoned, then the noun better fits into the metaphysical category. Quantum mechanics,

thermodynamics, chemistry all show us that being is an action at the most fundamental level,

even when we are looking at something “stationary”.

Theoretically, there could be one more permutation of the formula, though I am not

entirely sure what it would be at this point. But if we notice that relational existence involves the

evolution of context in substantial and instantiated components and that instantiated existence

involves the evolution of context in substantial components, then there is still room to evolve

context for even relational reality. But if relational reality is almost entirely concerned with

context, and context were the remaining portion of the formula (reassessing and combining the

relational components as we did in the previous cases), then what could the nature of the final

permutation of the formula be? If we allow material substantiation to remain as substantial

existence, function to remain as instantiated existence and context to be the relational existence,

then the only portion of the formula left is the form. In some important way, form defines what

actions an object is capable of performing. Mathematically, a function that does not correspond

to a physical existent, but comes out of a relationship of variables anyway is called an imaginary

solution (a very non-technical description of imaginary numbers). So perhaps the best place to

view this last permutation is in the realm of potential existents (which don’t actually exist).

The main component of non-existence is that it completely lacks material substantiation.

Non-existence has only two aspects: Potential existents and Impossibilities. Potential existents

are those things which could arise, if only the correct conditions were present. For example, I
Reality and Existence Mark Krueger

could be a great pianist if only I owned a piano, had the physical capability and practiced one

hundred thousand hours. But seeing as how the conditions are not met, I am not actually a great

pianist. Furthermore, even if I had a piano and had practiced one hundred thousand hours, I

would still only be a great pianist when I was playing the piano. At any other moment I would

only potentially be a great pianist while I was actually a great dish washer or a not so great

Spades player or etc. Actualized existence can only be in the exact instance of being, neither

before nor after. A thing only exists in actuality when it is being instantiated. And as the context

changes, so does the actuality of the situation. So if the boat suddenly runs aground it has

immediately become an actual bench and only a potential boat. Some people will say that the

boat is still a boat, even run aground. My argument is that the labels we give to things (the

creation of conceptual nouns) as static definitions refer to the intended potential function of the

thing and, usually, take it entirely out of context.

A metaphysical noun is what we see as a stable temporarily lasting thing, even as it

changes (sometimes even drastically so). An example is the boat. The boat appears to be a stable

thing, even when it is removed from the “surface of the water” (context). But as this context is

removed, another immediately replaces it, changing the existence of the thing. The boat

immediately becomes a trailer weight as it is removed from the water’s surface, even if it

remains a vehicle (if people are riding in it). The potential functions can remain the same, even

as we change the actualized functions and thus, the “this” of the thing. It is the intended potential

functions that define a conceptual noun. But we have stated earlier that potentially instantiated

actions are not actually existents, and are in fact non-existent. The conceptual noun is that idea

that a boat is always a boat no matter what you do with it. Conceptual nouns are the source of

many woes for humanity, but this is a separate topic. Conceptual nouns can never capture the
Reality and Existence Mark Krueger

totality of an existent because in order to communicate, we must have common conceptions.

These common conceptions must remain static if a meaningful dialogue is to develop. The

problem is that if a concept remains static, then it is not conforming to the actuality of the

situation, Furthermore, we all have our own definition for each term in a discussion. The only

solution is to set working definitions at the outset and stick to them until the definition has been

refuted or proven useful. So words are not useless, but must be chosen very carefully, not just in

speech, but in rationalizing at all.

The metaphysical verb is what we see metaphysical nouns as doing. It is important to

remember that physically speaking, every existent is substantiated through being (which is also a

verb) which arises in relation to every other existent. Arising is the dependant act of coming to

be. It is necessary for any other actions or characteristics to take hold. The act of being is the

primary condition for all other characteristics, thus the act of arising cannot have an arising in

itself or else an infinite regress is needed to describe anything. Without the primacy of being, we

cannot establish a causal connection between events. Furthermore, nothing arises of its own

volition, but from separate actions and events brought about through substantiated existents. But

if matter cannot ultimately be described substantially and something must be an underlying basis

for that; if it is to be at all, then matter must be based on something that is immaterial. But if that

thing which gives rise to matter is immaterial, then it cannot exist by our own definition. Thus all

existents come from non-existents. But how is this possible?

In the case of instantiated and relational existents, it is easy to see that potential existence

must be real before an actualized existent can bring about its arising. If it were not the case that

an action or relationship is possible prior to existence, then it could never come to be at all. This

is well and fine for instantiated existents, but none of this makes any sense if matter cannot be
Reality and Existence Mark Krueger

described in terms of potential existence, and ultimately it cannot. I say this because even though

we can describe how one existent comes to be through the inherent potential of a previous

structure, to continue this reasoning forever will lead to an infinite regress (because potential

existence still requires material substantiation). So matter must have a non-existent basis that

while not having any potential existence in itself must simultaneously give rise to potential

existence and physical existents. So matter must be substantiated through something that cannot

possibly exist itself. According to physics, the Impossible basis of matter is energy (E= γmc²).

Impossibilities are those things that could never arise in actuality. For example, it is

impossible to create an existent Platonic Form, because the conditions of its definition forsake

material substantiation. There is no thing that exists in a non-existent state. To admit such a thing

would be to say that a thing can exist without a spatial position or temporal relationship (that is

to say it would exist nowhere and without context). Because of the wavering nature of actualized

existence, potential existence is commonly referred to as existent. But this is erroneous. Potential

existents no more exist than impossibilities, as neither is materially substantiated, which is the

basis for all actualized existence. What we can see from the exposition of the non-existent is that

existence is not required for causal capacity. A person can attempt to actualize potential

existents, thus making potential existents real, but non-existent. The same can be said for

impossibilities. No matter how hard I attempt, I will never be able to grow a dollar tree. It could

be something I believe and act on, so impossibilities can be real too insofar as they have causal

capacity. In fact, both potential existents and impossibilities must be real before the actualized

existence of anything.

Reality is used in many different senses. We defined it earlier as having causal capacity.

Let us now be more explicit and say to be real, an object must be able to be acted upon as a
Reality and Existence Mark Krueger

rational cause or be a physical cause of action. To differentiate between the modes of reality, I

will divide it into three categories: Conceptual reality, Relational reality, and Ultimate reality.

But there is an important other sense in which we must differentiate reality that applies to the

experience of all three categories in people: Objective reality and Subjective reality. It is

important to note that subjective and objective reality can only refer to individual perspectives

taken by sentient beings.

Subjective reality is everything which is experienced individually. Anything that has a

causal impact on a conscious existent is subjectively real. Subjective reality is commonly

referred to as the feeling of an event or thing. Affect, however, is only one of the aspects of

subjective reality. The other aspects are judgments, inclinations, thoughts and perceptions. These

five in conjunction with the body provide the basis for our self and thus our subjective stance.

Other than the body, every basis for subjective reality is an action or function of the body. If

what we said about Instantiated existence is true, then without the body, the other aspects of the

self could not exist at all. Insofar as a thing has a self, it is in some sense a person. So inanimate

existents can only be objects of reality and never subjects of it. The subject of a reality is the one

that experiences it. The object of reality is the experience of something.

These instantiated aggregates of the self are acted upon by every sentient being. A dog is

capable of judging pleasurable perceptions from painful ones, to be inclined towards pleasure

and aversive towards pain, capable of learning new associations and problem solving (thinking).

Thus, the dog has a self and is a person. This means it has a subjective reality that can cause it to

act in certain ways that in turn play a larger role in the universal causal network (Universal, here,

is referring to the actualized universe of particulars). If personhood is able to be extended to

animals, I think it is important to decide how far down the chain we are willing to extend
Reality and Existence Mark Krueger

personhood. But perhaps this is a topic better discussed in an ethical consideration. For now, let

us say we draw the line at sentient beings, what a sentient being is can be argued later.

If subjective reality is based on this concept of selfhood, then the entirety of it is relative

to immeasurable aspects of personal position. It is personal in the sense that an individual self

has a unique perspective that cannot be truly verified or explicated. It is relative because of the

unique qualities required for the proper flourishing of any particular existent. So any event that is

good for one thing may be bad for another in a subjectively real way without placing any

relativistic necessities on the objectively real or ultimately real nature of the event.

Consequently, what a metaphysical noun really is (subjectively) may not correspond to what a

conceptual noun says it is “supposed” to be (objectively). So the potential boat, seen by a person

in a different context (say on land) may become a couch or a table or a cave or a home. It can be

all of these things, removing its boatness. Thus, it seems that in some important sense, that

subjective reality plays a role in modifying actualized existence. The role that it plays is

establishing value judgments. Value judgments we said earlier describe the nature of a

relationship between substantial existents.

Objective reality is comprised of all existent things which can be demonstrated to an

individual as happening. My use of the term objective may be confusing for some people,

especially to the analytically minded who want to believe that objective reality is an unbiased

account of how things actually are. This is not the case. The boat is objectively real insofar as we

can all go out to see it, touch it, smell it, taste it, but it is subjectively real insofar as the seeing,

touching, smelling, and tasting of the object has a unique effect on an individual that we can

never truly verify between subjects. What I do not mean by objective is that any given

interpretation of an event is correct. If each person in a given context can refer to the same
Reality and Existence Mark Krueger

collection of events and agree that it has some qualities (even if we disagree about the nature and

enumeration of said qualities), then a thing is objectively real. It does not matter, in terms of

objective reality, if what I see as red is what another being sees as green, so long as we can both

point to the same object in the environment and agree to call a specific object red. The calling of

a quality “the color red” is creating a concept from which to interact with other persons capable

of communicating.

I am not saying that the objective interpretations are infallible. We are consistently

making incorrect judgments about the nature of objects. But insofar as these incorrect judgments

can be demonstrated to an individual, it has become objectively real. False objective realities run

rampant in the history of science and religion because what is proved to the individual is based

on the level of education and skepticism of that individual. It was not until Galileo came around

and created a new objective reality that happened to be more objectively true than the previous

opinion that reality changed. Thus, there is a difference between objective reality and objective

truth. What this shows is that just because an aspect of reality is objective between a few

individuals it does not mean that it is objectively real for everyone. Furthermore, the actualized

existence is capable of shifting from one context to another through a subjective interference

with a person. So it seems that both objective and subjective reality can be applied to all

existents. The reality of an existent (relational reality) is thus dual natured. The objective

portions of reality can be measured by some external criterion. The subjective portions of reality

cannot be measured, only experienced by a person.

Insofar as there is anyone experiencing an object, there must be a subjective reality and

an objective reality. This experience is what a being is trying to relate in terms or concepts

created for the purpose of demonstration. Objective reality thus is concerned with demonstrating
Reality and Existence Mark Krueger

a subjective reality to individuals; but each individual has its own objective reality. All of

communication is an attempt to turn subjective reality into objective reality. But just because I

have demonstrated something as true to myself, does not mean anyone else will be convinced by

it. For example, if someone derives the general principles of special relativity on a blackboard

and I can follow the math, I may be convinced. But if I am not competent in math, it all just

looks Greek to me. Perhaps it will be to our advantage to examine how subjective and objective

portions of reality combine in each of the different modes of reality.

What we notice is that Conceptual reality, like subjective and objective reality, is a

construction of the self. I say that these aspects of reality are constructed because they are the

composite of feelings, judgments, inclinations, thoughts, perceptions, sensations, relationships,

rationalizations, attention we pay to stimuli that surround us, etc. There cannot be a concept of a

thing without a person to think it. Thinking and the holding of concepts are both actions and thus

must be instantiated. The instantiation of these phenomena is the basis for conceptual reality. To

say that they can exist without a self is again to say that an object can exist nowhere. For

conceptual reality to exist, it requires that there is an organism (material substantiation) with

sufficient complexity (form) to be able to think and have concepts (function) that describe

existent and non-existent things (context). This formulation requires a person and thus requires a

subjective and an objective portion for its existence. The reverse is also true. Subjective and

objective realities require a person which requires a conceptual reality to be able to do anything

intelligible.

Conceptual reality is having the capability of being a linguistic or mental object. The

mental objects may not actually exist. The number one is such a conceptual reality. It is real in

the sense that we can add or subtract one from other numbers. Thus one has causal capacity in
Reality and Existence Mark Krueger

theoretical terms. One does not exist though because it has no components to be arranged, no

function that it serves (other than it’s being a quantitative value) and is always in a linguistic or

mental context. The representation of one, however, does exist. It is composed of ink, arranged

in a straight line. In some contexts it functions as a place holder, in some it represents the identity

function, etc. Thus the representation of one exists, though one does not. The subjective portion

of conceptually real things includes that which gives the connotations and emotional associations

that a person has with any given concept or thing. It includes the thoughts and memories that

arise in a person in response to an object of thought. It includes the judgments that one has made

concerning the mental object and the disposition one has towards it. The Objectively real portion

is that which is the conceptual definition and existence of a given thing. Thus, “one” can be

subjectively real (but not objectively) and is impossible (incapable of material substantiation),

while “the representation of one” is both subjectively and objectively real and has the potential

for existence. It is in the construction of conceptual reality that any realm of actualized freedom

of the will could exist. Also, it is in the realm of conceptual reality that most human strife arises,

but again, that is for the ethics. For now, let us be contented with the idea that the concepts we

hold are things that can be modified through rationalization and reason.

Relational reality is the causal capacity of contextually based objects or events that exist

to co-define one another. This sounds like relational existence, because the two concepts are

intertwined. The instantiation of relational existence requires the ability to act on relational

reality. An example of this is a hammer. A hammer exists because it is wood and metal arranged

such that the metal on one end is capable of pounding objects of some sort in some way. The

usual context of the hammer is that of a tool. A hammer is a tool we use to pound in nails. If we

change the context (say to that of a weapon), then the hammer has changed its existential
Reality and Existence Mark Krueger

definition. A hammer is a weapon we use to pound in skulls. All that has changed is the target of

the function. As we showed before, the same can be said for a boat or a house or any objects we

think of as existent. A relational reality could become a conceptual reality and a conceptual

reality is capable of causing actions which are relationally real.

The subjective portion of this reality is that we notice different potential existents in any

given thing and can determine what to act on to bring it about. The objective portion of this

reality is that we can show cause and effect through the exploitation and categorizing of

relational realities. Relational reality is comprised of all existent and potentially existent things.

It includes both conceptual reality and ultimate reality. It is the confluence of all the layers of

contextual dependence. Anything which has any relationship to any other thing has a relational

reality. Thus, all things are relationally real. Relational reality is not so much constructed by the

individual as it is modified through manipulation of context.

Ultimate reality is those things that will happen regardless of any person’s interpretation

of them. In most cases, these are the things that we have no way of knowing or explaining with

total certainty (like free will or quantum mechanics). Ultimate reality must be the true nature of

the universe, because if at one point there were no people and at some time later there will be no

people and the universe is to continue to exist, then neither subjective reality nor objective reality

can play a role in defining Ultimate reality. That is not to say that people do not have an effect on

ultimate reality. Certainly, everything that exists is accounted for by something ultimately and

ultimately everything that occurs is real, thus subjective reality, objective reality and selfhood

must be affecting it in some way. It is only that our interpretation of the event will only change

our relationship to it, not the phenomenon itself. The opposite however is not true. Ultimate

reality is absolutely required for the existence of selves. If we as people did not exist, the
Reality and Existence Mark Krueger

universe would continue. If the universe did not exist, then we as people could not continue.

Ultimate reality must also be the cause of relational reality, and thus a defining role in existence

and potential. The subjective portion of ultimate reality is the experience of subjectivity. The

objective portion is the process of rationalizing and reasoning. The thing we had before that fit

this description was the impossible basis of matter, Energy.

There are a few unthwarted assumptions about Energy that I have encountered in the past

few years that I will recount now with their consequences. Energy can neither be created nor

destroyed (it is thus eternal). Energy is continuous, but everything that exists can only be

effected by discrete quantized packets (it is thus unlimited in this regard, while everything else is

limited by its being). Energy is the basis for all existence; both actualized and potential (it thus is

the generator and sustainer of all things). Energy is everywhere that there is anything, even an

absence of things (it is thus omnipresent). Energy cannot be measured directly, but can be

reached through any physical formula or direct observation (it is thus removed, yet accessible).

Energy is the basis for subjective and objective reality (it is thus personal, in a sense). Energy is

the basis for the mental and material realities (it is thus the most real thing there is for personal

existence). Energy is immaterial and therefore has no discernable characteristics (thus it is

incomprehensible, in a sense). The uncertainty principle tells us that even if we know everything

there is to know about a given set of causal conditions; we cannot predict (beyond statistics)

what the effects will be in actuality before we observe it (thus the way of energy is beyond our

empirical prediction). What does all of this mean about Energy? I can only help but think we

may have met definitions with what some might call God. If this is the same thing, then it is

important to take note of this consequence: God does not exist and it is impossible for God to

ever exist (past, present or future), but God is still the most real thing that ever was, is or shall be
Reality and Existence Mark Krueger

(regardless of our flawed or nonexistent knowledge of it) and is the basis for all existent things.

All that being said, it is now time to consider the ethical, moral, religious, political, social and

universal implications for a person holding this position.

A Note on the writing style

I was attempting to combine the engagement of the Platonic dialogues in the formal Aristotelian
format. The result was much less Platonic than I had hoped and the closest I got was using personal
pronouns. I understand this is something frowned upon in academia, but ultimately, I am not writing for
academia. The intention is to engage a reader and charge them with the task of challenging the ideas. If I
use the word “we” in a paper, more people will have a tendency to disagree because they want to feel
special. The next chapter is intended to explore the ethical implications of such a God figure. The next
chapter is going to set up the metaphysics of describing the manifestations of Energy in existence and
reality through what I can describe non-mathematically about physics. This exposition will then reveal
the nature of God. This exposition will lead to an ethical ground for a moral framework. We will see how
that goes =0p